The Effect of Sin: "Total Depravity"BY WILLIAM SASSERA gentleman was heard to exclaim, as he left a certain church service, "I don't think I'm going to come here again, they make you feel like you're a sinner." No doubt, this particular fellow would have felt at home with the Pharisees. You remember they were a religious sect who regarded themselves as righteous through law-keeping, and everyone else wicked sinners. However, many "wicked sinners" felt drawn to the Son of God. In fact, they were attracted to Him by the droves. When the disciples were asked, "Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?", Jesus answered for them: "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Matthew 9:11-13)." Because Christ came to call sinners, it is essential that we have a good understanding of the doctrine of sin, as taught in the Bible.

The Bible has quite a bit to say about sin. The English word, "sin," is found some 299 times in the Old Testament. In the New Testament there are 276 references to sin. The doctrine of sin is known theologically as Hamartiology, from the Greek word, hamartia {ham-ar-tee'-ah}, meaning, "to miss the mark, to err, to be mistaken. "This particular word, hamartia, is found some one hundred fifty-one times in the New Testament. Sin is commonly defined as "the transgression of the law." The Apostle John tells us, in I John 3:4, Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

Several words in the Bible are translated by our English word, sin. Put together, these words reveal the essence of the biblical concept of sin.

From the Hebrew language of the Old Testament we discover the following:

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, volume IV, page 2798, gives the following general definition of the Biblical view of sin:

Sin is any attitude of indifference, unbelief, or disobedience to the will of God revealed in conscience, law, or gospel, whether this attitude express itself in thought, word, deed, or settled disposition and conduct. Transgression of known law, then, is sin; but so is wrong attitude, wrong desires, wrong 'set' of the will orself (rebellion - pesh, asebeia; perversion - Won, adikia; ruin, confusion - resh, apostasia, epithumia; I John 3:4; Matthew 5:22, 28; Romans 7:8ff; 5:21). Sin is thus unbelief (Hebrews 3:12, 19), the centering of the self upon something, or someone, less than God Himself (Genesis 3:6; Romans 1:28; 8:7).

The doctrine of sin may be practically stated by the simple phrase "all men and women are sinners" (Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Ecclesiastes 8:11; 9:3; Jeremiah 17:9). What this means is that the state of man before God is one of total depravity (unwillingness) and total inability (unableness). That is, the unregenerate person has not the desire nor the ability to love, seek, or submit to spiritual truth. Of the five so-called "Doctrines of Grace," - sin, salvation, atonement, calling, security - this is perhaps the most important. If this point is received and understood, not only will the other four doctrines be readily received, but more easily understood. According to the Heidelberg Catechism, 3rd Lord's Day, Questions 6,7,8:

Question 6: Did God then create man so wicked and perverse?

Answer: By no means. But, God created man good, and after his own image; in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him, and live with Him in eternal happiness, to glorify and praise Him.

Question 7: Whence, then, proceeds this depravity of human nature?

Answer: From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise. Hence, our nature has become so corrupt that we are all conceived and born in sin.

Question 8: Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good and inclined to all wickedness?

Answer: Indeed, we are, except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God.

Can these statements be proved by Scripture? What saith the Word of God? The prophet said, "If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20). I shall now proceed to show you why I believe that this view of sin, i.e., total depravity and total inability, is in complete harmony with Scripture.

A. What Total Depravity Does Not Mean.

1.It does not mean that man is absolutely depraved.

"Absolute" depravity would mean all men are depraved both intensively and extensively. Intensive has reference to the degree to which sin may have brought man with reference to his depravity. Extensive is in reference to the extent to which sin has actually depraved man.

The intensity of sin is not total. That is, no man is as bad as he can be. Apart from the restraining grace of God–called "common grace" by the old writers–every man could become much worse in actual behaviour. However, the extent of sin is total. Every human being has been infected and affected by sin in every part of the body, soul and spirit. The whole, or total, being has been invaded by sin. Thus, "total depravity" means that every faculty of man's being, every activity of his life, and every sphere of his existence has been permeated by sin.

a. Compared to a snake because of his venom (Psa. 140:3).b. Compared to a mule because of his stubbornness (Job 11:12).

c. Compared to a bear because of his cruelty (

Dan. 7:5).

d. Compared to a dog because of his uncleanness (II Pet. 2:21).

e. Compared to a sow because of her uncleanness (II Pet. 2:21).

f. Compared to a dragon because of his desolateness (Job 30:29).

g. Compared to a fox because of his cunningness (Heb. 13:32).

h. Compared to a leopard because of his fierceness (Dan. 7:6).

I. Compared to a lion because of his ravening (Psa. 22:18).

j. Compared to a moth because of his frailty (Job 27:18).

k. Compared to a spider because of his flimsiness (Isa. 59:5).

l. Compared to a wolf because of his ferociousness (Jn. 10:12).

m. Compared to a locust because of his destructiveness (Joel 2:25).

n. Compared to a sheep because of his stupidity (Isa. 53:"6).

4. In man is the...

a. Absence of original righteousness -- best deeds are void of righteousness (Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:9-10; Psa. 14:2-3).b. Presence of positive evil – all men have a proclivity, or bent, toward evil rather than good (Jer. 13:23; 17:9; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:22).

This, then, is the extent of sin in man. This is total depravity. What would it be if men were absolutely depraved?

5. Total depravity does not mean the total absence of relative good, whether that goodness is civil, natural, or even religious.

a. Men may be good citizens, good parents and even good church members. Men may possess a kind of goodness which causes them to sacrifice for worthy projects and goals. For example, Albert Schweitzer could have been a doctor of medicine, a doctor of music, or a doctor of theology, but he willfully chose to give his life for the heathen people of Africa. By all standards of the world he was a "good": man. However, Dr. Schweitzer was not a Christian! To him, Jesus was not the eternal Christ, the Son of God, nor was the Bible inspired by God. In addition, Schweitzer did not accept the atoning work of Christ. Thus, though Schweitzer sacrificed his life for Africa, he was not a believer. And though he did many wonderful works yet he was totally depraved.b. Question: How is total depravity manifested in good men?

Answer: They are in rebellion to Jesus Christ! If not in deed, then in the thoughts and intents of their hearts. Even the heathen do good, not because they are good, but because the Law is written in their natures by virtue of the fact that they were created in the image of God (Rom. 2:14).

Question: Why don't men break out into total outward rebellion?

Answer: they are restrained by the common grace of God (II Thess. 2:6-7).

Conclusion:

Total Depravity is not absolute depravityTotal Depravity is not the total absence of relative good.

Though man is not intensively evil, He is extensively evil.

B. What Total Depravity Does Mean - Positively. By nature we only and always sin.

1 It is important for us to know that even relative good, which I have shown you may exist even in unbelievers, is not good in God's sight.

2. What men call "good" is evil in a Holy God's sight."Verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity." (Psa. 39:5) "An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked is sin." (Prov. 21:4)

Question: How can there be sin in plowing a field? Why is plowing connected with a high look and a proud heart? The farmer works hard in the field, he provides his family with food, perhaps even for the good of others. How could this be sin?

Answer: First, because he does not plough in faith. Secondly, he does not plough for the glory of God. Does he acknowledge who gave him the field, or the strength to plow it, or the wisdom to make crops? No! He takes all the credit to himself, and curses the weather when he is not successful. Further, he gives none of his increase to the Lord.

3. Conclusion: The natural man can never do anything which is fundamentally pleasing to God, but only evil continually, for he is self motivated.

a. "God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Genesis 6:5* Man's wickedness is great because it's against God.

* Man's wickedness is deep: "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart."

* Man's wickedness is "only evil continually."

b. Man's wickedness is from his youth.

"For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21)

.

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5).

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go estray as soon as they be born speaking lies" (Psalm 58:3).

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jer.. 17:9 See also Romans 3:10-18)

c. Total Depravity, positively stated, means that men only and always, by nature, apart from regeneration, sin.

C. What Total Depravity Negatively—by nature we do not have the ability to please God or hate sin; we call this Total Inability.

1. This answers all the questions asked about the will of man. Make the will of man as free as you please. Let him will what he pleases; his problem is his ability. One may will to take ten years off his life, but let's see him or her do it! One may will to be wealthy, but this does not mean one will be wealthy. Exercising the will is no problem. Exercising the ability is where the problem lies.

2. Consider these Bible facts:

* Man has a carnal mind which is enmity to God and which is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be (Rom. 8:7).* The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them (I Cor. 2:14).

* No man can come to Christ (Jn. 6:44,65).

* "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8).

Please note that in all these scriptures the word "can" is the focal point. Many confuse "can" with "may" when considering total depravity and total inability. The question is not "may I come to God?," but "can I come to God?" Of course, you may come. God does not hinder you, Christ does not forbid you, nor does the Holy Spirit withstand you, you certainly may come. But can you? "May I come?" asks permission. "Can I come?" speaks of ability. In other words, all have permission to come, but none have the ability to do so.

Christ never said, "You may not come to me, that ye might have Life." He said, "You will not come to me, that ye might have life." John 5:40.

Why will not men come to Christ when it is clear that they have a clear invitation and permission? Simply because they don't have the ability, i.e., they cannot. Thus, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day" stands as a fact beyond dispute. See John 6:44,65.

3. Analogies: Christ used many analogies to show and demonstrate the fact that salvation is a supernatural act of heaven, and does not lie within the ability of the sinner.

a. The new birth (John 3). Prior to conception there is non-being. In conception only the parents are active, the conceived child has nothing to say about when, where or how it shall be conceived and born. In like manner, before spiritual conception and birth there is only spiritual non-being. How can a spiritual non-being believe and repent? Thus, faith is a result of spiritual conception, not the cause of it. As in natural conception only the parent is active. In this case the parent is God.b. Creation (II Corinthians 5:17). "In the beginning God" is the only cause and explanation for the created universe. Nothingness cannot produce something. The Creation was totally passive in coming into being. God spoke the universe into being. He said, "Let there be," and there was. Paul speaks of believers as being "new creations in Christ." The same cause is responsible for the new creation, and in the same manner, as the old creation. "In the beginning God created" is the cause of all new creations in Christ. God speaks and there is.

c. Resurrection (Ephesians 2:1). The only person who can be resurrected is a dead one. Living people aren't resurrected. The only person who can resurrect a dead person is God. In the same manner, men are said to be "dead in trespasses and sins." Accordingly, they cannot resurrect themselves. If they are to be quickened, i.e., made alive, God must do it. To be raised to spiritual life and joined in spiritual union with Christ is nothing short of a miracle. Perhaps the best illustration is an extra-biblical one.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;

All the king's horses and all the king's men

Couldn't put Humpty back together again.

Conclusions:

1. Salvation must be of God. Men cannot save themselves.

2. The basic cause of trouble in our world is the spiritual enslavement of men to sin: ".... destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace have they not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes." Rom. 3:16-18

3. The slightest desire to know God, be delivered from sin and bow to Christ is evidence of the work of the Lord.

4. The doctrines of total depravity and total inability are designed to drive us to cry to the Lord for deliverance.

Your sophistry is certainly typical of those who try to eliminate the biblical teaching concerning homosexuality. And, it is insulting to those of us who are given to know the Scriptures, especially the original languages.

1. Romans 1 definitely reveals the natural rejection of all mankind of the one true living God, for they are born with a corruption, a depraved nature.

2. And because of ALL mankind is an idolator by nature, God gave them over to their depravity which is expressed in infinite ways. However, Paul, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit lists some of the more abominable sins, e.g., homosexuality, which is a sin not only against God but nature itself, for He created man as male and female and ordained that they should compliment each other and enter into a marriage bond. But mankind being depraved and an enemy of God rejected that which God originally intended and exchange the nature affections (pathos) for the opposite sex for an affection for the opposite sex; female for female and male for male. Further, not only did they express a VILE affection for the opposite sex, they went even further and engaged in the original use (chresis) sexual intercourse with the opposite sex. This by definition is homo (same sex) sexuality. Try as you might, the truth is incontrovertible. No conservative Christian commentator has ever even entertained that Romans teaches that homosexual affection and particularly homosexual acts are allowed, never mind deemed "natural".

3. It is clear that the 2000 Edition of BAG has taken on a new staff which is not of God and changed various things from previous versions to accommodate the ever declining morals of society.

4. Using the "Analogy of Faith", i.e., comparing Scripture with Scripture, one who is given the Holy Spirit at regeneration infallibly knows that homosexuality and all sexual deviant behavior is condemned by God. And, as I have before mentioned, the entire Church throughout history has openly condemned such. It is only in recent years that the homosexual (taken as a term generally speaking) has taken root and succeeded in making inroads in not only society but in the visible church, which too has fallen from orthodoxy for the most part.

Originally Posted by PerpetualLearner

Nothing in the entire Bible condemns two males loving each other faithfully including sexual intimacy. You can invent all the theological constructions you wish, but the Bible does not condemn men loving men.

Doubtless this sums up your entire position and reveals that you are still under the wrath and condemnation of God despite your insistence to the contrary. Even without a knowledge of the Bible or the Koran or any other 'holy' book, which universally condemn your lifestyle, a person naturally knows that homosexuality is wrong; a sin.

5. No one has even hinted any of the sins noted in Romans 1 should be ignored. In fact, ANY sin which is mentioned in Scripture is worth of death. Even further, IF it were possible that a human being committed not one sins, did not have one thought that was contrary to God's law nor had one single foul affection, that person would still be under the just wrath of God and condemnation for they own the guilty of Adam's sin and are worthy of eternal death and punishment.

6. Nothing in Hodge's commentary on Romans, of which I also have a copy and am well knowledgeable of what Hodge wrote supports your position. The "recompense" is the withholding of the Spirit's restraint (mentioned by Anthony already), which resulted and continues to be true is the expression of vile and abominable sins which are against nature itself, i.e., sexual deviancy; females with females and males with males which are specifically mentioned.

Lastly, I must iterate my former compassionate plea to you Ned, Pray that God would grant unto you repentance of your vile sin and a true living faith in the LORD Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins, that you would be justified in Him and receive that new life in Christ which He Himself promised to all who would come to Him in order to be reconciled with God and redeemed in His precious blood which He poured out for all those whom the Father gave Him. Cast yourself before His mercy and plead that He call you with an irresistible calling of the Spirit unto Christ.

I'm going to quote the REB, but use any translation you like and see if you find any substantive difference.

NO ONE chooses their sexual orientation any more than they choose their eye color ,height, etc. If it was not man's choice, who made a homosexual male that way?

"Who do you think you are to answer God back? Can the pot say to the potter, ‘Why did you make me like this?’? Surely the potter can do what he likes with the clay. Is he not free to make two vessels out of the same lump, one to be treasured, the other for common use?" (Rom 9:20-21, REB)

No one thinks divorce is good, but in this fallen world Jesus gave permission in the case of the unfaithful spouse, yet, it was not like that at the beginning, the created order:

"He answered, ‘It was because of your stubbornness that Moses gave you permission to divorce your wives; but it was not like that at the beginning. I tell you, if a man divorces his wife for any cause other than unchastity, and marries another, he commits adultery.’" (Matt 19:8-9, REB)

Don't misunderstand, my color blindness is not the created order, it is a defect of my vision and it is not immoral just because it is not like in Eden. My sexual orientation in life is a defect of my sexual and personal nature but it in itself is not sin either and it was not my choice, it appeared at age 6 or 7. But, I sure can express it sinfully and have many times in life, but my loving another man including intimacy is not sin in that alone. Psychology says it is not abnormal, but it surely is not in accord with the perfection of Eden, so in this sense it is not natural and I don't recall ever saying it is. There is an interesting story in the OT:

"1–2 That same day, when Saul had finished talking with David, he kept him and would not let him return any more to his father’s house, for he saw that Jonathan had given his heart to David and had grown to love him as himself. Jonathan and David made a solemn compact because each loved the other as dearly as himself." (1Sam 18:1-3, REB)

That can be seen to be a very close, platonic friendship, but the lament of David below is another story.

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were most dear to me; your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." (2Sam 1:26, REB)

Against the background of the verses in 1 Samuel, I am struck by the phrase "love of women". It does not say "love of mother", "love of brother", "love of father" or even "love of wife/wives"! Most commentaries through the years have said it means the love of a wife or wives for their husband, but those words were available and there is no English translation I am aware of that translates by using "wife" or "wives". But, the translators of one version saw the problem as they translated, the Douay-Rheims version and they solved the problem this way:

"I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee." (2Sam 1:26, DRC)

The Douay solves the problem by inserting a totally fake, fraudulent sentence which I underlined. That way they introduced the idea of "love of mother". The fact that they resorted to this trickery shows they recognized exactly what the verse states, there was some sexual dimension to the love of Jonathan for David, however slight or expressed.

The Hebrew for "love" here in 2 Sam. 1:26 and 1 Sam. 18:3 is: "H160" and when following from the first occurrence, that Hebrew word as it is applied to human to human love, it is interesting it is used of male to female love at the first occurrence in Gen.29:20 where it refers to Jacob's love for Rachel. The next 3 occurrences of human to human love using this Hebrew word are of David and Jonathan in 1 Sam. 18:3; 20:17; and 2 Sam. 1:26. After those 3 references, the very next use of the word is in 2 Sam. 13:15 of the sordid "love" of incest of Amnon to Tamar.

Even if one still believes it is sin, it is the most moral option that I've found. This writer on Christian ethics agrees:

"I think that homosexual people are not responsible for their sexual orientation toward loving people of their own gender.I think that, as a class ,homosexual people are as moral, as spiritual, as decent and good, as creative, and as much in need of the grace of God as heterosexual people are.I think that homosexuality is not the sexual orientation that God intended in creation. It is a genetic lapse. It is nature gone awry. There is tragedy in it. And homosexual people are called to live as morally within their tragedy as the rest of us are called to live within whatever may be ours.I think that homosexual people merit the same rights and bear the same responsibilities within society that anyone else does.I think that, if celibacy is not possible, it is better for homosexual people to live together in committed monogamous relationships of love than not. Homosexual partnerships that are committed offer the best moral option available." page 243 of "Sex for Christians" Revised Edition 1994 ... Dr. Smedes (1921-2002) was professor emeritus of theology and ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California... a Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. book.

The German theologian writing in 1964 surely hit the nail on the head:

One of the early discussions of homosexuality in Christian ethics, was by the German theologian Helmut Thielicke in his 1964 book, "The Ethics of Sex". The first statement he makes at the beginning of the chapter on homosexuality is as follows:

"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent." page 269 and also...

"Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenonemon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 270

What shocks me about this is that in all my years as a Christian this is the first time I have seen someone who claims to be Reformed use Scripture in this manner.Yes I have known people and still do that at one time struggled with the sin of homosexuality. However, they admitted their sin and repented. Then eventually overcame their evil desires.On the other hand, I know a lady who now says she is a man and has left any form of conservative Church. She now attends a liberal Church and thinks nothing of marching in a gay pride parade.Her friends tried to reach out to her; but her response was that God is perfectly fine with this.Tom

NO ONE chooses their sexual orientation any more than they choose their eye color ,height, etc. If it was not man's choice, who made a homosexual male that way?

I am not shocked nor surprised to read some of the things you defend. Scripture tells us that man is totally depraved and you are simply being yourself, a depraved individual who will bend and twist God's Word to your own destruction. Sadly for you, you are an elder man and show no signs of recognizing your sinful nature and therefore refuse to repent of this wicked behavior and mindset. No, you are absolutely wrong. Homosexuals are not moral, not good, and they are most certainly in need of repentance. You deceive yourself and most likely, others as well. That is sad, for it is to your own destruction. The Highway has been patient with you and we have tried to explain to you your need and the Gospel. God certainly can change you. It is called regeneration, the giving of a new heart in place of your heart of stone that you might repent of your sins and believe upon the Lord Christ Jesus for the remission of your sins. It causes the believer to love God and seek to obey Him in all things and to mortify one's sinful behavior. This Ned will not happen for you without a new heart and you will continue to deceive and be deceived for you love your sin.

The Chestnut MareAll that is gold does not glitter,Not all those who wander are lostThe old that is strong does not wither,Deep roots are not reached by frost.- - - -JRR Tolkien "Lord of the Rings"

Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). In view of these solemn words it is tremendously important that each of us should seek and obtain from God the repentance which He requires, not resting content with anything short of this. Hence, there needs to be the most diligent and prayerful examination as to the character of our repentance. Multitudes are deceived thereon. Many are perplexed by the conflicting teaching of men on this subject; but instead of that discouraging, it should stir up to a more earnest searching of the Scriptures. Before turning to the positive side of this branch of our theme, let us first point out some of the features of a nonsaving repentance.

Trembling beneath the preaching of God's Word is not repentance. True, there are thousands of people who have listened unmoved to the most awe-inspiring sermons, and even descriptions of the torments of the damned have struck no terror to their hearts. Yet, on the other hand, many who were deeply stirred, filled with alarm, and moved to tears, are now in hell. I have seen the faces of strong men pale under a searching message, yet next day all its effects had left them. Felix “trembled” (Acts 24:25) under the preaching of Paul!

Being “almost persuaded” is not repentance. Agrippa (Acts 26:28) is a case in point. A person may give full assent to the messages of God's servant, admire the gospel, yea, receive the Word with joy, and after all, be only a stony-ground hearer (Matt. 13:20-21). Not only so, he may be conscious of his evildoing and acknowledge the same. Pharaoh owned, “I have sinned against the Lord your God” (Exod. 10:16). A man may realize that he ought to yield himself to the claims of God and become a Christian, yet never be more than “almost persuaded.”

Humbling ourselves beneath the mighty hand of God is not repentance. People may be deeply moved, weep, go home and determine to reform their lives, and yet return to their sins. A solemn example of this is found in Ahab. That wicked king of Israel coveted Naboth's vineyard, plotted to secure it, and gained his end by causing him to be murdered. Then the servant of God met him and said, “Hast thou killed and also taken possession?” And we are told that “he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted . . . and went softly” (I Kings 21:27-29). Yet in the very next chapter we find him again rebelling against God, and that he was cut off by divine judgment. Ah, my reader, you may have humbled yourself before God for a time, and yet remain the slave of your lusts. You may be afraid of hell, and yet not of sinning. If hell were extinguished, so would be the repentance of many church members. O mistake not fear of the wrath to come for a holy hatred and horror of sin.

Confessing sins is not repentance. Thousands have gone forward to the “altar” or “mourners' bench” and have told God what vile creatures they were, enumerating a long list of transgressions, but without any deep realization of the unspeakable awfulness of their sins, or a spark of holy hatred of them. The sequel has shown this, for they now ignore God's commandments as much as they did before. O my reader, if you do not, in the strength of God, resist sin, if you do not turn from it, then your fancied repentance is only whitewash—paint which decorates, but not the grace which transforms into gold. ~ A.W. Pink

The Chestnut MareAll that is gold does not glitter,Not all those who wander are lostThe old that is strong does not wither,Deep roots are not reached by frost.- - - -JRR Tolkien "Lord of the Rings"

Tom, I think I know why 'Bible believing' Christian men have such a view toward an exclusively homosexual male. There are actually very few exclusively homosexual males, maybe as low as 1% and I don't believe it can be as high as 5%. But, most men when younger have had some degree of gay type feelings at times in certain situations with particular male friends. They may even have sex with a male friend and maybe more than once, but they are NOT homosexual males. If Christian, the teaching heard is hopefully the true biblical pattern, you are to be attracted girls and you are, even if you explored things with a male friend. The biblical model and pattern is you get married, have a family and love your wife. Now, a Christian man has had this when younger and because of his faith, his understanding of Scripture, he feels guilt and stops any homosexual acts. The man was never a homosexual male and so, he projects his experience onto all other males, even exclusively homosexual males, who don't have the ability to just turn off attraction to the same gender and live a normal, heterosexual life. I can read this all through sincere, godly men's views of homosexuality. Now, how strong the homosexual or bisexual drive may be, can vary among males. When I first went online 22 years ago, I purposely sought out Christian sites and especially if this situation was discussed. I remember on of the first I came across was an article by the SBC theologian, R. Albert Mohler. In his article, he scoffed, and I'm paraphrasing here, "There is no such thing as homosexual orientation, it just the sin orientation in a guy."

There used to be what were called Newsgroups, or Usenet. I sought out the Christian groups and used that approach to work out my options in life since I am 100%, exclusively homosexual in my sex/emotional life. I debated and argued with men of God online. I'd get flattened by someone's good biblical argument. That sent me to study more and usually ended up revising. It was very helpful for me because it forced me to study, BUT, and this is important, I too was fearful that we can believe so easily what we wish to be true. This is one reason I like to look at the works of older men of God, prior to the age of psychological studies in sexology. I also will avoid taking actual pro-gay studies seriously. I've read a few, and it was actually a liberal book that first tipped me off that the Greek had an exact word for a "catamite" and that is not what Paul used. Another way I attempted to keep myself between the guard rails was by knowing something about the author and his view of homosexuality. I'll give you a perfect example right here, concerning Leviticus 18:22 -

In the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series, Leviticus, by Professor R. K. Harrison, the commentary on v22 reads:

"The regulations of Leviticus condemn certain aberrations found among the Egyptians and Canaanites, who went far towards deifying sexual activity, and assigned the title 'holy ones' to cultic prostitutes. Sacro-homosexual practices and female prostitution within the context of the cultus was probably well established throughout the ancient Near East long before the Israelites occupied Canaan. Homosexuality of a non-religious variety is poorly documented in Mesopotamian texts..." page 191

This is definitly not a "gay friendly" professor! On the last page of the commentary, page 252 he states: "For a person to think of himself or herself as a 'Christian homosexual' or a 'Christian lesbian' is a complete contradiction in terms..."

It is noticeable that I quote dictionaries, thesauruses, books on biblical interpretation, etc. I need to know I am doing my best to be as objective as possible and not breaking rules of interpretation. I got that tip from Myron Augsburger, a Mennonite scholar. He pointed out how if we have been taught a verse means a particular thing, every time we read that verse it will say the same thing to us, even if what we think it means is wrong. He gave approaches to try and give a verse a fresh examination to see if it truly is teaching what we think it is. I use the commentary web site with over 100 commentaries on it. I have some favorites there, like Matthew Poole, John Gill, who I do favor, but I'll look at the reasoning on verses from various viewpoints and try to evaluate the points made. Something I noticed when reading men from the past, especially further back like the Puritans, most of their commentary on the "sin of Sodom" is couched in the belief that it is married men, family men who do this wicked sin as Paul describes.

I'll close with a personal account. I met my companion online 21 years ago, and he had a girlfriend he planned to marry. He had told me he was bicurious and then later said bisexual. He struggled for 4 years trying to figure what direction to go, be my 'buddy for life', marry and have a family. I mean he weighed the various things, marriage provided children for his old age, marriage satisfied his culture, traditions and family expectations. Yet, he admitted he had very little to no arousal from women, and no positive emotional feelings to females. So, he was bisexual in the sense he was in middle with tradition, culture and family on one side; and me who he truly loved on the other side. So, he decided, if he married she'd be a good wife; but I'd still have his heart and that was not fair to her. Now, that is how it worked in our situation. I don't know how many views of this thread are repeat views, I am positive someone who has read these posts knows someone important to them that is dealing with the sexual defect of exclusively homosexual orientation.

Tom, it is obvious by how fast I posted these matters, I've worked at this for years and have notes. Sadly, many homosexual males just give up on the church in bitterness, or go into the mainline liberal churches. Thanks for giving me the chance to try and explain how I think things are in this situation. I oppose gay marriage, detest LGBTQ activism we see, we live a discreet life; not an 'in your face' way of living.

NO ONE chooses their sexual orientation any more than they choose their eye color ,height, etc. If it was not man's choice, who made a homosexual male that way?

To use your argument, the Bible nowhere speaks of "sexual orientation". This is a modern psychological fabrication in order to relegate homosexuals to the "victim class", as the Liberals have done to near everything. Let me state the truth to you once again... ALL MANKIND is born in sin. The natural man loves sin and hates God, and all that is good, pure and right (Jh 3:19-21; Rom 1-3; Eph 2:1-3, 4:17-19). Your homosexual proclivity is simply one manifestation of your sin nature no less than one may be predisposed to steal, commit adultery, lie, cheat, covet another's position, wealth, etc. One FREELY CHOOSES to entertain such sinful desires and thus is singularly responsible for how they deal with them. Of course, the natural man is not only incapable of resisting such temptation but they have no desire to do so (Rom 1:28, 8:7,8; 1Cor 2:14; Col 1:21; 2Tim 3:1-5; Jam 4:4,5; 1Jh 2:15,16; et al). The ONLY cure to one's love of sin is God's redeeming grace, being united to Christ and being given the Spirit of power to overcome all sin (1Cor 10:14; Phil 2:12,13; Eph 6:12,13; Ps 124:6-8).

Lewis Smedes was a well known flaming heretic and hardly a reliable source of truth.

Helmut Thielicke, again yet another heretical theologian and is no purveyor of biblical truth.

You can only find writers who are outside conservative biblical scholars and who were/are enemies of God to support your sinful behavior. You have offered nothing whatsoever to defend your case and you never will for darkness will never overcome the light and the truth of God. Your love of sin is intractable and inescapable for you as a natural man are a slave of your sin with no desire to escape it. Only the Spirit of Truth can provide you with the desire and strength to overcome it by a work of regeneration. May the LORD God be so inclined to look upon you with pity and give you what you so desperately need and deliver you from the bondage which holds you before He takes your life.

It must be challenging your struggles.....but one thing I can't understand for the life of me.... Why would you choose to be part of a conservative church or mainline protestant church and not a progressive liberal church? I mean we are the deep end....but even most conservative churches have pretty biblical, traditional views, although we are living in radically crazy times where things are changing fast and only very good theology can prevent a major slip....

Also why are you against ssm exactly? I'm not following your logic....seems inconsistent

It sounds like you are trying to reconcile orthodoxy with this particular struggle.... Kind of like the new gay conservative phemomenon in the political realm...which I also reject, but consider a much lesser thing

Anthony, I recognize your questions as sincere and serious. I was raised in independent, fundamentalist Baptist churches. I remained so until in my 20s when various things happened that caused me to study to see if and how I'd been misled. My freewill idea of faith, was a challenge. This Dispensational eschatology I'd been raised on was just a convoluted system that I found explicitly contradicted by Scripture in too many places. I studied my way out and into a sovereignty of God position. I did not do this all on my own 'smarts'. After reading the 'shock treatment' of Lorraine Boettner's The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, I had my eyes opened. I read after men like John Gill, Robert L. Dabney, Matthew Poole, etc. I was not seeking a pillar of truth to follow as a leader, I was looking for reasoning, logic in how they approached Scriptures. I began to study books on hermeneutics as well. But, I left the question about my sexual problem to later in my life, fearing I'd too easily believe what I wished to be true. At a point in my life, I felt forced to approach my sexual defect using the serious study as I used on the theological issues as found in books like James P. Boyce, a Calvinist and supralapsarian himself. I have come to my position on my sexual situation, using the same approach as I did all of my earlier studies, on the standard subjects of theology.

I do not think homosexual life should be an in your face type rebellion, in spite of what some may think reading my posts. In my eyes a homosexual relationship must be discreet. As far as the male model, the pattern, it should be the good, married men of the body of Christ who the younger look up to as a guide. But, on the other hand we must recognize there are serious difficulties facing many that don't fit so neatly in the pat answers of much of evangelicalism. One thing is, being a theologian does not qualify one to use the terms of psychology and use them in different ways and deny what is known through psychology and common sense, the common experience. No homosexual male would choose such a life, especially if he is a regenerate child of God. It's my nature, now how do I handle it? My theology is strongly Calvinistic in the Baptist way so I cannot fit into a "progressive liberal" church.

The Bible does make quite clear that marriage is m-f, not same gender. I take Jesus words in Matt. 19:12 and apply them to me, recognizing that Bible commentators have understood that "eunuch" is not to be so literal there:

"There are men who from their birth have been disabled from marriage, others who have been so disabled by men, and others who have disabled themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matt 19:12, Weymouth)

So, I turn to a passage in Ecclesiastes as a further guide:

"There is one that is alone, and he hath not a second; yea, he hath neither son nor brother; yet is there no end of all his labor, neither are his eyes satisfied with riches. For whom then, saith he, do I labor, and deprive my soul of good? This also is vanity, yea, it is a sore travail. Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him that is alone when he falleth, and hath not another to lift him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have warmth; but how can one be warm alone? And if a man prevail against him that is alone, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken." (Eccl 4:8-12, ASV)

I prayed for a long time with this as a basis for my plea to God in Jesus' name. God answered and what my companion and I have learned about each other's past and how our personalities match, it is quite clear to me that even before my prayers, God had already been planning and working out the solution my buddy and myself both needed. By the way, I'm not a member of the Log Cabin Republicans either. ;-)

I find 1 Cor. 4:6 to be my guide and it kept me orthodox in faith, and also, it is how I approach my situation: "learn not to go beyond the things which are written". This is why I avoid theological constructions unless forced to do so such as on the Trinity. To me, infant baptism, and sprinkling is not supported by explicit statements of Scripture; but, and I emphasize, I do not break fellowship over matters such as that.

Anthony, where do you see anywhere in what Perpetual Learner has said that he is struggling? Isn't that your projection on him? He denies that homosexuality is sinful and is attempting to convince others that God does not hate it and condemn it.

The Chestnut MareAll that is gold does not glitter,Not all those who wander are lostThe old that is strong does not wither,Deep roots are not reached by frost.- - - -JRR Tolkien "Lord of the Rings"

He has to be struggling, at least at one point.... He admits that the Bible is pro-marriage, he is pro-male to male relationship and believes the bible does not condemn it although he is personally against ssm.... He's very,very confused about what scriptures teaches and even what he believes ..... He claims to be Calvinist but doesn't believe the main tenets apply to him and his desires???? Very bizarre .... Cognitive dissonance....

Perhaps you would give my quote from Pink a read Anthony. Note the comment " A person may give full assent to the messages of God's servant, admire the gospel, yea, receive the Word with joy, and after all, be only a stony-ground hearer (Matt. 13:20-21)" You see a person can have an intellectual apprehension of right doctrine yet never embrace with his heart. I think you are yourself familiar with some who do that.

The Chestnut MareAll that is gold does not glitter,Not all those who wander are lostThe old that is strong does not wither,Deep roots are not reached by frost.- - - -JRR Tolkien "Lord of the Rings"

Perhaps you would give my quote from Pink a read Anthony. Note the comment " A person may give full assent to the messages of God's servant, admire the gospel, yea, receive the Word with joy, and after all, be only a stony-ground hearer (Matt. 13:20-21)" You see a person can have an intellectual apprehension of right doctrine yet never embrace with his heart. I think you are yourself familiar with some who do that.

I wish to thank Pilgrim for his patience, and in this situation I know it was not easy for him. I will follow his suggestion, if anyone feels a desire to ask me anything or pursue this because of a true need, you can send me an email and I promise an answer: PerpetualLearner@gmx.cn